Men's Rugby Union World Cup 2023

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't talk absolute crap.

You're saying that those sides went into the group matches against England, Ireland and France respectively saying "these don't matter because we'll be in a QF that we will win". You can't say "this match doesn't count because it didn't matter in the end". The players didn't know that at the time.

This really is the end of the conversation. You must be trying to yank our chains.

I'm not talking crap.

For any coach worth the name their objective is to qualify for the next stage. In the group stages this means winning three matches, as that is what you need to get to the quarter finals barring the most bizarre of circumstances. So they will be looking at which three matches they can win in the group and they will recognise that although they'd like to win all four matches, they can afford to lose one match and still achieve their objective of getting to the quarter finals.

So those group stage match ups of France vs NZ and SA vs Ireland were ones that whilst each team would of course like to win all four teams would have recognised that losing wasn't really that important as long as they could see a path to the quarters by winning their other three matches, which they would have seen as the other three teams in the groups were demonstrably weaker.

I doubt they'd have given much thought to the 1st vs 2nd place issue as they would regardless have a pretty competitive quarter final and as these four teams were basically the four favourites to win the tournament each would feel they could beat anyone and would have to beat anyone to win.

But you still seem to be failing to recognise that those group stage matches were irrelevant as the losers (NZ and SA) are still in the tournament, while the winners (France and Ireland) are out.

[Nearly Sane]

Stunning drama, if not the greatest match.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67182592

[ProfessorDavey]

Stunning drama, if not the greatest match.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67182592

I thought it was compelling as a match and gutted that England couldn't hold on. Sometimes you don't need piles of tries to make a great rugby match. England played brilliantly, way above what most people expected and SA were pretty shambolic until near the end. But SA simply had another gear to get the job done, the gear shift came when England started losing every scrum with a reluctant penalty.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought it was compelling as a match and gutted that England couldn't hold on. Sometimes you don't need piles of tries to make a great rugby match. England played brilliantly, way above what most people expected and SA were pretty shambolic until near the end. But SA simply had another gear to get the job done, the gear shift came when England started losing every scrum with a reluctant penalty.

Who said anything about needing lots of tries for it to be a great match? It's the shambolic bit that's the issue.

[jeremyp]

I'm not talking crap.

Yes you are. You really don't know what you are talking about, if you think those matches didn't matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes you are. You really don't know what you are talking about, if you think those matches didn't matter.

Blimey JP, you really are like a bear with a sore tooth.

So let's look at those two group matches that you seem to think were ever so important, Ireland vs SA and NZ vs France. Imagine if the results had gone the other way, so that NZ and SA had won rather than France and Ireland. Let's see what difference it would have made.

So what actually happened was Ireland and France won those group games, with Ireland, SA, NZ and France qualifying for the quarter finals with Ireland playing NZ and SA playing France.

So what would have happened if SA and NZ had won those group games. Well, err, Ireland, SA, NZ and France would have qualifyied for the quarter finals with Ireland playing NZ and SA playing France.

If those matches had been reversed in terms of results it would have made literally zero difference to the unfolding of the tournament.

And last time I looked SA and NZ (who lost those group matches that JP seems to think were critically important) will be contesting the final next weekend. Those group matches were clearly irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who said anything about needing lots of tries for it to be a great match?

There are loads of so-called rugby fans who seem obsessed only with tries - the people who boo if a team decides to kick a penalty for 3 points rather than kick for touch to go for a try.

It's the shambolic bit that's the issue.

I think SA were pretty shambolic in the early stages - they clearly got tactics wrong and didn't cope well with the conditions. Why do you think their coach made a key tactical substitution with just 30 mins on the clock.

[Nearly Sane]

There are loads of so-called rugby fans who seem obsessed only with tries - the people who boo if a team decides to kick a penalty for 3 points rather than kick for touch to go for a try.
I think SA were pretty shambolic in the early stages - they clearly got tactics wrong and didn't cope well with the conditions. Why do you think their coach made a key tactical substitution with just 30 mins on the clock.

For me, a great match involves 2 good teams playing their best.

[jeremyp]

There are loads of so-called rugby fans who seem obsessed only with tries - the people who boo if a team decides to kick a penalty for 3 points rather than kick for touch to go for a try.

There was a time back in the Carling and Johnson eras where England very much relied on forward power. I actually prefer watching matches like that where the forwards grind the opposition down over the course of eighty minutes. I like the game to be really tight so that when somebody does break out, it's all the more exciting.

I think SA were pretty shambolic in the early stages - they clearly got tactics wrong and didn't cope well with the conditions. Why do you think their coach made a key tactical substitution with just 30 mins on the clock.

I didn't watch the match because I was expecting another cricket score, but I gather it was pissing down with rain. That was probably a factor.

[Nearly Sane]

Be interesting to see if anything comes from this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67185493

[ProfessorDavey]

For me, a great match involves 2 good teams playing their best.

It was certainly a great match and England certainly played way above expectation. But I think the south africans would have been really disappointed at how they adapted to the conditions and to England's tactics in the first half, which is why they'd made seven changes to their starting side by 50 minutes, none of which (I think) were due to injury.

[Nearly Sane]

It was certainly a great match and England certainly played way above expectation. But I think the south africans would have been really disappointed at how they adapted to the conditions and to England's tactics in the first half, which is why they'd made seven changes to their starting side by 50 minutes, none of which (I think) were due to injury.

When you write it was 'certainly a great match', what are you trying to convey with the use of the word 'certainly'? It reads as if you are trying to gild your subjective opinion as something more objective.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm...

'Bongi Mbonambi named in South Africa team to face New Zealand'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67223507

[jeremyp]

Hmmm...

'Bongi Mbonambi named in South Africa team to face New Zealand'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67223796

What? Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that too?

[Outrider]

What? Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that too?

Presumably it's not that he's responsible for the selection, but rather that he suggested earlier in the day that Mbonambi wouldn't be selected?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

What? Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that too?

Thanks. Updated

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67223507

[jeremyp]

England come third.

I have to admit that they exceeded my expectations in this RWC. I thought the best they would do is come second in the group and go out in the QF against Wales or Australia. I wasn't even confident of the coming second part.

[Nearly Sane]

England come third.

I have to admit that they exceeded my expectations in this RWC. I thought the best they would do is come second in the group and go out in the QF against Wales or Australia. I wasn't even confident of the coming second part.

I think that as with the actual rankings , they are now the 5th best team in the world, and the oddities of the draw got them 3rd.

[Nearly Sane]

The 2027 World Cup will have 24 teams.


https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/885620/rugby-world-cup-2027-expanded-to-24-teams

[jeremyp]

the oddities of the draw got them 3rd.

Totally agree, but even with the weak bottom half of the draw, they did far better than I expected. Their current fifth place is a reflection of how they did in the tournament: going in, they were in eighth below both Fiji and Argentina.

[jeremyp]

The 2027 World Cup will have 24 teams.


https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/885620/rugby-world-cup-2027-expanded-to-24-teams

I'm very supportive of the idea. Having the hiatus every week during the pool stages was quite annoying. The only problem will be in finding four more competitive teams.

[Nearly Sane]

So that's it. To paraphrase Gary Lineker's comment about football, rugby union is now that they play for 80 minutes, someone gets sent off, and South Africa win by 1 point.

[Nearly Sane]

And Cane's sending off delays his start for my new favourite team Suntory Sungoliath - what a name!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67331907